Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Endgame code instead of Tablebases

Author: Bruce Moreland

Date: 09:17:47 04/17/99

Go up one level in this thread



On April 17, 1999 at 11:53:10, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote:

>	Tablebases stored on hard disk are hard to manage, because they are slow to
>probe, even at standard time controls. Something even slower would be
>practically unusable even at standard time controls. I do not see a big
>difference between standard and blitz in this case, as at standard time controls
>tablebase probes will be hitting before, because the program has more time to
>move and a variation can lead to a tablebase position from a position with a
>relitively high amount of pieces on the board.

Right now the cost of a table lookup is one disk access, approximately.  Perhaps
you can save some due to locality of access, but in a file that's a serious
fraction of a gigabyte in size, that's part of a set of related files that total
several gigabytes, you are going to end up hitting the disk a lot.

It would be a significant advancement if these files were turned into a smaller
aggregate of code and data, such they they could all fit into a reasonable
amount of RAM.  The code could even be fairly complex, anything has to be better
than a disk access.

That is what is driving this.

bruce



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.